p age 1
play

P age 1 Photo of Disk Head, Arm, Disk Device Terminology - PDF document

Motivation: Who Cares About I / O? CS252 Graduate Computer Architecture CPU Perf ormance: 60% per year I / O syst em perf ormance limit ed by mechanical delays (disk I / O) I / O I ntroduction: Storage Devices & RAI D < 10% per


  1. Motivation: Who Cares About I / O? CS252 Graduate Computer Architecture • CPU Perf ormance: 60% per year • I / O syst em perf ormance limit ed by mechanical delays (disk I / O) I / O I ntroduction: Storage Devices & RAI D < 10% per year (I O per sec) • Amdahl' s Law: syst em speed- up limited by the slowest part! 10% I O & 10x CPU => 5x Perf ormance (lose 50%) Jason Hill 10% I O & 100x CPU => 10x Perf ormance (lose 90%) • I / O bottleneck: Diminishing f raction of time in CPU Diminishing value of f aster CPUs CS252/ Culler CS252/ Culler 2/ 7/ 02 2/ 7/ 02 Lec 6. 1 Lec 6. 2 I / O Systems Big Picture: Who cares about CPUs? interrupts interrupts Processor • Why still important to keep CPUs busy vs. I O devices ("CPU t ime"), as CPUs not cost ly? Cache – Moore' s Law leads to both large, f ast CPUs but also to very small, cheap CPUs – 2001 Hypothesis: 600 MHz PC is f ast enough f or Of f ice Memory - I/O Bus Tools? – PC slowdown since f ast enough unless games, new apps? Main I/O I/O I/O • People care more about about st oring inf ormat ion Memory Controller Controller Controller and communicat ing inf ormat ion t han calculat ing – "I nf ormation Technology" vs. "Computer Science" Graphics Disk Disk Network – 1960s and 1980s: Computing Revolution – 1990s and 2000s: I nf ormation Age • Next 3 weeks on st orage and communicat ion CS252/ Culler CS252/ Culler 2/ 7/ 02 2/ 7/ 02 Lec 6. 3 Lec 6. 4 Storage Technology Drivers Outline • Driven by t he prevailing comput ing paradigm • Disk Basics – 1950s: migration f rom batch to on- line processing • Disk History – 1990s: migration to ubiquitous computing • Disk opt ions in 2000 » computers in phones, books, cars, video cameras, … • Disk f allacies and perf ormance » nationwide f iber optical network with wireless tails • FLASH • Ef f ect s on st orage indust ry: – Embedded storage • Tapes » smaller, cheaper, more reliable, lower power • RAI D – Data utilities » high capacity, hierarchically managed storage CS252/ Culler CS252/ Culler 2/ 7/ 02 2/ 7/ 02 Lec 6. 5 Lec 6. 6 P age 1

  2. Photo of Disk Head, Arm, Disk Device Terminology Actuator Inner Outer Arm Head Sector Spindle Track Track Arm Head Platter Actuator { Actuator • Several platters, with inf ormation recorded magnetically on both surfaces (usually) Platters (12) • Bits recorded in tracks, which in turn divided into sectors (e.g., 512 Bytes) • Actuator moves head (end of arm,1/ surf ace) over track (“seek” ), select surf ace, wait f or sector rotate under head, then read or write – “Cylinder”: all tracks under heads CS252/ Culler CS252/ Culler 2/ 7/ 02 2/ 7/ 02 Lec 6. 7 Lec 6. 8 Disk Device Perf ormance Disk Device Perf ormance Inner Outer Sector Head Controller Arm • Average distance sector f rom head? Spindle Track Track • 1/ 2 t ime of a rot at ion – 10000 Revolutions Per Minute ⇒ 166.67 Rev/ sec – 1 revolution = 1/ 166.67 sec ⇒ 6.00 milliseconds Platter Actuator – 1/ 2 rotation (revolution) ⇒ 3.00 m s • Average no. t racks move arm? • Disk Lat ency = Seek Time + Rot at ion Time + Transf er – Sum all possible seek distances Time + Cont roller Overhead f rom all possible tracks / # possible • Seek Time? depends no. tracks move arm, seek speed of disk » Assumes average seek distance is random • Rotation Time? depends on speed disk rotates, how f ar sector is – Disk industry standard benchmark f rom head • Transf er Time? depends on data rate (bandwidth) of disk (bit density), size of request CS252/ Culler CS252/ Culler 2/ 7/ 02 2/ 7/ 02 Lec 6. 9 Lec 6. 10 Data Rate: I nner vs. Outer Tracks Devices: Magnetic Disks • To keep t hings simple, orginally kept same number of • Purpose: Track sect ors per t rack – Long- term, nonvolatile storage Sector – Since outer track longer, lower bits per inch – Large, inexpensive, slow level in the storage hierarchy • Compet it ion ⇒ decided to keep BPI the same f or all • Characteristics: tracks (“const ant bit densit y”) Cylinder ⇒ More capacity per disk – Seek Time (~8 ms avg) Platter ⇒ More of sectors per track towards edge » positional latency Head ⇒ Since disk spins at constant speed, » rotational latency outer tracks have f aster data rate Transf er rate • 7200 RPM = 120 RPS => 8 ms per rev ave rot. latency = 4 ms • Bandwidt h out er t rack 1. 7X inner t rack! – 10- 40 MByte/ sec 128 sectors per track => 0.25 ms per sector 1 KB per sector => 16 MB / s – I nner track highest density, outer track lowest, so not really – Blocks const ant • Capacit y – 2. 1X length of track outer / inner, 1. 7X bits outer / inner – Gigabytes Response time – Quadruples every 2 years = Queue + Controller + Seek + Rot + Xfer (aerodynamics) Service time CS252/ Culler CS252/ Culler 2/ 7/ 02 2/ 7/ 02 Lec 6. 11 Lec 6. 12 P age 2

  3. Disk Perf ormance Model / Trends State of the Art: Barracuda 180 – 181. 6 GB, 3. 5 inch disk • Capacit y – 12 plat t ers, 24 surf aces + 100%/ year (2X / 1.0 yrs) – 24, 247 cylinders • Transf er rate (BW) Track + 40%/ year (2X / 2.0 yrs) – 7, 200 RPM; (4. 2 ms avg. lat ency) • Rotation + Seek time – 8%/ year (1/ 2 in 10 yrs) Sector – 7. 4/ 8. 2 ms avg. seek (r/ w) • MB/ $ Cylinder > 100%/ year (2X / 1.0 yrs) – 64 t o 35 MB/ s (int ernal) Track Arm Platter Head Fewer chips + areal density Buffer – 0. 1 ms controller time Latency = – 10. 3 wat t s (idle) Queuing Time + per byte { Controller time + per access Seek Time + + Rotation Time + Size / Bandwidth source: www.seagate.com CS252/ Culler CS252/ Culler 2/ 7/ 02 2/ 7/ 02 Lec 6. 13 Lec 6. 14 Disk Perf ormance Example (will f ix later) CS 252 Administrivia • Calculat e t ime t o read 64 KB (128 sect ors) f or Barracuda 180 X using advert ised perf ormance; sector is on outer track Disk lat ency = average seek t ime + average rot at ional delay + t ransf er t ime + cont roller overhead = 7. 4 ms + 0. 5 * 1/ (7200 RPM) + 64 KB / (65 MB/ s) + 0. 1 ms = 7. 4 ms + 0. 5 / (7200 RPM/ (60000ms/ M)) + 64 KB / (65 KB/ ms) + 0. 1 ms = 7. 4 + 4. 2 + 1. 0 + 0. 1 ms = 12. 7 ms CS252/ Culler CS252/ Culler 2/ 7/ 02 2/ 7/ 02 Lec 6. 15 Lec 6. 16 Areal Density Areal Density Year Areal Density • Bits recorded along a track 100000 1973 1.7 – Metric is Bits Per I nch (BPI ) 1979 7.7 10000 1989 63 • Number of t racks per surf ace 1997 3090 1000 2000 17100 – Metric is Tracks Per I nch (TPI ) Areal Density 100 • Disk Designs Brag about bit densit y per unit area 10 – Metric is Bit s Per Square I nch – Called Areal Density 1 – Areal Density = BPI x TPI 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year – Areal Density = BPI x TPI – Change slope 30%/ yr to 60%/ yr about 1991 CS252/ Culler CS252/ Culler 2/ 7/ 02 2/ 7/ 02 Lec 6. 17 Lec 6. 18 P age 3

  4. Historical Perspective MBits per square inch: • 1956 I BM Ramac — early 1970s Winchester DRAM as % of Disk over time – Developed f or mainf rame computers, proprietary interf aces – Steady shrink in f orm f actor: 27 in. to 14 in 9 v. 22 Mb/si 50% • Form f act or and capacit y drives market , more t han perf ormance 40% • 1970s: Mainf rames ⇒ 14 inch diamet er disks • 1980s: Minicomput ers, Servers ⇒ 8”, 5 1/ 4 ” diameter 30% • PCs, workst at ions Lat e 1980s/ Early 1990s: 20% 470 v. 3000 Mb/si – Mass market disk drives become a reality 10% » industry standards: SCSI , I PI , I DE Cs ⇒ 3. 5 inch diameter disks – Pizzabox P 0.2 v. 1.7 Mb/si 0% – Laptops, notebooks ⇒ 2. 5 inch disks – Palmtops didn’t use disks, 1974 1980 1986 1992 1998 2000 so 1. 8 inch diameter disks didn’t make it • 2000s: source: New York Times, 2/23/98, page C3, “Makers of disk drives crowd even mroe data into even smaller spaces” – 1 inch f or cameras, cell phones? CS252/ Culler CS252/ Culler 2/ 7/ 02 2/ 7/ 02 Lec 6. 19 Lec 6. 20 Disk History Disk History Data density Mbit/sq. in. Capacity of Unit Shown Megabytes 1989: 1997: 1997: 63 Mbit/sq. in 1450 Mbit/sq. in 3090 Mbit/sq. in 1973: 1979: 60,000 MBytes 2300 MBytes 8100 MBytes 1. 7 Mbit/sq. in 7. 7 Mbit/sq. in 140 MBytes 2,300 MBytes source: New York Times, 2/23/98, page C3, source: New York Times, 2/23/98, page C3, “Makers of disk drives crowd even more data into even smaller spaces” “Makers of disk drives crowd even mroe data into even smaller spaces” CS252/ Culler CS252/ Culler 2/ 7/ 02 2/ 7/ 02 Lec 6. 21 Lec 6. 22 1 inch disk drive! Disk Characteristics in 2000 • 2000 I BM MicroDrive: Seagate IBM IBM 1GB – 1.7” x 1.4” x 0.2” Cheetah Travelstar Microdrive – 1 GB, 3600 RPM, ST173404LC 32GH DJSA - DSCM-11000 5 MB/ s, 15 ms seek Ultra160 SCSI 232 ATA-4 – Digital camera, PalmPC? Disk diameter 3.5 2.5 1.0 • 2006 MicroDrive? (inches) Formatted data 73.4 32.0 1.0 • 9 GB, 50 MB/ s! capacity (GB) Cylinders – Assuming it f inds a niche 14,100 21,664 7,167 in a successf ul product Disks – Assuming past trends continue 12 4 1 Recording 24 8 2 Surfaces (Heads) Bytes per sector 512 to 4096 512 512 Avg Sectors per ~ 424 ~ 360 ~ 140 track (512 byte) Max. areal 6.0 14.0 15.2 density(Gbit/sq.in.) CS252/ Culler $ 828 $ 447 $ 435 CS252/ Culler 2/ 7/ 02 2/ 7/ 02 Lec 6. 23 Lec 6. 24 P age 4

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend